https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109062 The court interpreted section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, ruling that the requisite three-fourths majority for approving a compromise or arrangement should be based on the value of creditors/shareholders present and voting, not the total value. The court emphasized that the provision's language was unambiguous and that interpreting it otherwise would render key terms redundant and impractical for large companies. The court rejected the contrary view expressed in Euro Cotspin Ltd., affirming the petitioners' argument and directing the petitions for disposal in line with this interpretation. en-us Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:52:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109062 The court interpreted section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, ruling that the requisite three-fourths majority for approving a compromise or arrangement should be based on the value of creditors/shareholders present and voting, not the total value. The court emphasized that the provision's language was unambiguous and that interpreting it otherwise would render key terms redundant and impractical for large companies. The court rejected the contrary view expressed in Euro Cotspin Ltd., affirming the petitioners' argument and directing the petitions for disposal in line with this interpretation. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109062